Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Rigged!

It appears that the famous "Battle of the Sexes" tennis match between Bobby Riggs and Billie Jean King in 1973 was a setup to get Riggs out of some mob-related gambling debt.

Shaw's workroom was about 20 feet from the men, who sat at a circular
table. Through the window to the darkened bag room door, he could see
them, but they couldn't see him. Shaw says he was "petrified" as he
tried to remain completely still, worrying that the men would find him
lurking there. Then Shaw heard something he'd keep secret for the next
40 years: Bobby Riggs owed the gangsters more than $100,000 from lost
sports bets, and he had a plan to pay it back.

Shaw, now 79, told the story of what he saw and heard that Tampa
night to a friend late last year for the first time. This spring, he
told it to "Outside the Lines."

The men, Shaw says, used an array of nicknames for Riggs -- "Riggsy,"
"BB," "Bobby Bolita." Ragano told the men that "Riggsy" was prepared to
"set up two matches … against the two best women players in the world,"
Shaw says. "He mentioned Margaret Court -- and it's easy for me to
remember that because one of my aunt's [sic] names was Margaret so that, you
know, wasn't hard to remember -- and the second lady was Billie Jean
King."

This is hilarious. I always knew there was something fishy about that match...anyone who has played at a competitive level of any sport knows the vast difference between men and women in speed and power, even at different levels. I've heard that when the WNBA wants a good hard scrimmage, they go find a half-decent Division 2 high school boys varsity team. The women win about 10-25% of the time. The same is true of women's pro soccer, except it's more like a 15U boys team.

The difference is just too vast. The Williams sisters thought they could beat a man "ranked around 200th" in 1998. They couldn't - not even close:

Preparation is crucial. Remember that a game like this is light-hearted - taking it too seriously would be a mistake. My training regime consisted of a leisurely round of golf in the morning followed by a couple of shandies. I turned up on court feeling suitably laid-back.

My first game of the afternoon, just a one-set match, was against Serena. A hint: try and play your match somewhere quiet, where you're not going to be pestered by big crowds or lots of press - we were out on one of the back courts at Melbourne Park, No 17 I think it was. I felt so relaxed that I didn't even warm up properly. We started playing and I raced into a 5-0 lead.

At this point Venus turned up to watch. She had just finished a press conference after a quarter-final loss against Lindsey Davenport. In the end I won my game against Serena 6-1 but by the time we were at the net shaking hands, Venus was on court, ready to have a go against me as well. The game against Venus was very similar. I ended up winning 6-2.

Saturday, April 28, 2007

Cops plant marijuana at 92-year old woman's house after shooting her to death

The charges followed a Nov. 21 "no-knock" drug raid on the home of Kathryn Johnston, 92. An informant [Who later admitted that he lied about this to get the police to leave him alone. --jml] had described buying drugs from a dealer there, police said. When the officers burst in without warning, Johnston fired at them, and they fired back, killing her.

Fulton County prosecutor Peter Johnson said that the officers involved in Johnston's death fired 39 shots, striking her five or six times, including a fatal blow to the chest.

He said Johnston fired only once through her door and didn't hit any of the officers. That means the officers who were wounded likely were hit by their own colleagues, he said.

Friday, April 20, 2007

WMDs in Iraq; now in Syria

Between March and July 2003, he says, he was taken to four sites in southern Iraq — two within Nasariyah, one 20 miles south and one near Basra — which, he was told by numerous Iraqi sources, contained biological and chemical weapons, material for a nuclear programme and UN-proscribed missiles. He was, he says, in no doubt whatever that this was true.

This was, in the first place, because of the massive size of these sites and the extreme lengths to which the Iraqis had gone to conceal them. Three of them were bunkers buried 20 to 30 feet beneath the Euphrates. They had been constructed through building dams which were removed after the huge subterranean vaults had been excavated so that these were concealed beneath the river bed. The bunker walls were made of reinforced concrete five feet thick.

Very interesting: WMDs are found in Iraq, but Dems and Repubs are equally reluctant to publicize it.(Found on Geek with a .45)

Thursday, March 08, 2007

Government: The Problem to the Solution

Last fall my doctor got a call [from] Medicare, who told him to raise his rates, “or else”. So he did, effective Jan 1 the basic visit went up $10. The result? Not good enough. Medicare called again. Rates needed to be [within] such and such a percentage of other doctors in the region. Then they told him to the penny what that rate had to be if he wanted Medicare reimbursement.

Sunday, January 28, 2007

Quote of the Month

I could eat the president of NOW's heart live on Fox News, announce the founding of the John Adams Anti-Suffragism Society, then declare my intention of raping every teenage girl in the country, and three months later I'd be sitting in my jail cell perusing dozens of marriage proposals from lovestruck women.

Only men who don't know anything about women concern themselves with winning female approval in order to attract women. If anything, the approval reduces the attraction.

Monday, January 01, 2007

Homeschooling Principles

One judge in Nebraska said that the public educational system is preparing the children of America for the year 2000 when we will all merge into the new world order. He went on to say that the children of Christian homeschool families would not fit into that planned system.

Never even consider sending your children to private Christian schools, much less the public automaton factory. Whether a classroom is based completely on Christian education or secular is not the issue (although, we would by far prefer the Christian). God didn't make teenage boys and girls to sit together in a classroom every day using their brain while real life passes them by. The world's system digs a pit and then creates a myriad of industries to reclaim the tragic lives that fall into it. Classroom education for the young is a pit. The psychiatrists, counselors, social workers, Planned Parenthood, policemen, social manipulators, juvenile courts, drug dealers, penal institutions, and medical doctors stand on the edge of the pit competing for the business generated by the shovels of the National Educational Association.

One warning: There exists a fundamental fault that is telling in the discouragement experienced by many home-school families. The public educational system is based on false premises. Therefore, both its curriculum and its format are in error. The homeschool is not established to duplicate the public school in a private environment; yet most homeschoolers are attempting to do that very thing. The stress on the family attempting to perform for the sake of public image, as well as state required testing, is destructive to a wholesome growth environment.

Ask yourself and answer the question, "If I did not have to answer to anyone, and I were not controlled by public opinion, what would I desire for my children to learn in their early years?" Keep in mind that specialty disciplines that are necessary for professional employment need not be taught by either the classroom or the homeschool. [emphasis mine]

Parents, you are wearing yourself out trying to keep up with the Judges. Teach from your heart, not from the John Dewy perspective. Children need a mother who teaches them, not a teacher who doesn't have the emotional energy to mother them. Young men need a father who teaches them to work, not a father too busy working to teach them.

The best schooling for children is a good home life, not a home that is all school. It is a strange perversion to remove a child from that which is natural to life and make of him a professional student. Such accepts the false premise that academic and behavioral education is the foundation of life and society. Order your own life according to God's perspective. Your children are too valuable for you to compromise.

This, especially the emphasized part, is exactly why I will not send my children to an "assembly-line" school.

I've known (about the emphasized part, above) for some time, but could not formulate the wording in my head--it has nagged at me, and in some conversations with others on the topic of home schooling vs. "regular" schooling I just couldn't form the idea solidly enough to communicate it.

Darned good book (I'm reading it online, but I'll probably buy it.). Read the reviews on Amazon, and you'll get a good idea of how good a book it is--there are so many people that hate this book, it's laughable. (Mostly women who've been hoodwinked into believing whatever the "theory du jour" of child rearing is.) For a proper review of the book, and another darned good site to take the time to read, try Raising Godly Tomatoes.

Friday, December 01, 2006

Vaccinations: What to do?

Opinions wanted

The wife and I take our new daughter in for her 2-month checkup this coming week. As you may know, this is normally the time when the first immunizations are done.

I'm quite leery of vaccinations in general (effectiveness/harm vs. good), and was wondering if there were any of you folks out there who had opinions on this, specifically those who may have avoided vaccinations altogether, or didn't have your children vaccinated.

Friday, October 13, 2006

Praise the Lord!

Thanks for the prayers

Our daughter's biliruben (sp?) levels have come down, so we can take her off the bili blanket for tonight. Have to go for another test tomorrow AM, just to make sure. We ecstatic that she's getting better, and praying for another good report tomorrow.

EDIT: Biliruben levels came down again without the blanket.

God is good!

MORE PRAYER: Some friends of ours have a slightly older baby (~1 month old?) that has some digestive problems. If I understand correctly, where her stomach meets her intestine is swollen, restricting the movement of food through the digestive tract. Might require surgery.

Good point.

PATRICIA DUNN AND SOME UNSAVORY MEN OBTAINED A FEW DOZEN PHONE CALL RECORDS. Whether or not "pretexting" is illegal isn't very clear, although it is certainly unethical. As a result, Ms. Dunn and others have been charged with crimes, forced to appear before Congress, and are the subject of investigations by the FBI, and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

GEORGE BUSH AND SOME UNSAVORY MEN OBTAINED BILLIONS OF PHONE CALL RECORDS. The fact that this is illegal is very clear, as Congress passed the FISA law in 1978 because a previous criminal in the White House had done the same thing, on a very much smaller scale. A Federal judge ruled the program unconstitutional, but her superiors just ruled that the spying can continue. No one has been charged with crimes, no one has been forced to appear in hearings or testify under oath, and the FBI admits that it seeks the phone records of reporters.

Monday, October 09, 2006

Hitch 50

Our names are Scotty and Fiddy and we're hitchhiking to all 50 state capitals in 50 consecutive days or less. If you want to offer a ride, give us a shout at 310-494-8058 or hitch50@gmail.com. Our current location is on the above map. If the dot is moving, that means we're on the move. If the dot isn't moving, then this is probably what's going on right now.

It looks like they have some sort of GPS-enabled phone, and that will help them track their location on the map.

Sounds like an idea I should have had--about seven years ago--before I was attached to a certain female.

Request...

My daughter has jaundice. We're waiting for test results to see the severity--whether she has to be hospitalized for light treatment or not.

We could use some prayers, if anyone sees this. Thanks.

EDIT: Don't have to go to the hospital! Health care supplier brought out a 4" wide plastic strip that hooks up via a 1-1/4" hose to a small machine. When turned on, the strip has several zig-zag rows of bright blue light (I'm tired; that's all the better I can do). The strip is wrapped around the little angel's torso, and turned on. The light (bright, neon blue) is a certain bandwidth that breaks down whatever it is that causes jaundice, and allows it to be expelled via her urine.

I have no idea how she's sleeping with that wrapped around her, but she is...for now.

Back to the hospital tomorrow for more tests, to see if the light treatment helped.

Thursday, October 05, 2006

It's a girl!

Brought her home yesterday; funny how it changes you. I'm sitting here with a baby monitor--if she sneezes funny, I'm in her room checking to see if she's being attacked by a walrus or something. No potential tragedy is too far-fetched that I don't want to protect her from it somehow.

I can't believe I'm blogging about a baby.

Oh, and we passed on the Hep B vaccination. Too many risks assocaiated w/ the vaccine, for my taste, and she's not exactly "at risk" for the disease yet. We'll wait until she starts sharing needles with random gutter-dwelling hobos, then we'll think about it...

Sunday, September 24, 2006

Strip searching your kids

WASHINGTON – Even though student molestations seem to be reaching epidemic proportions in schools across America, the House of Representatives has approved a tough new anti-drug and anti-weapon law that would require local districts to develop search policies – including strip searches – with immunity against prosecution for teachers and staff.

Should this become law, and you, as a parent, still keep your children in public schools, you're unfit to be a parent.

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Clear your snow, citizen!

People living in Chambersburg will clear their sidewalks of snow this winter, or borough workers will give them a ticket, have it done for them and send a bill.

Chambersburg Borough Council plans to pass a new policy next week outlining how snow removal issues will be handled this winter and revise its ordinance to increase the fine for borough residents who do not shovel their walks or clear ice following a storm.

The borough already has an ordinance requiring sidewalks be cleared within 24 hours of a snowstorm, but in the past it has been enforced only when someone complained.

"This year the ordinance is going to be enforced," Assistant Borough Manager David Finch promised council when reviewing the proposed ordinance Monday night.

Under the proposed policy, the borough will send teams of inspectors out to check sidewalks throughout the borough, beginning 24 hours after the end of a major snowstorm, according to Finch.

These inspectors will post brightly colored warning notices on the front doors of properties where sidewalks have not been cleared and the next day inspectors will be back to check the sidewalks a second time. If those sidewalks have not been cleared, a ticket will be issued for the violation of borough ordinance.

After that ticket is issued, no further action will be taken during that first snowfall, Finch said, but if the ticket is not paid, a citation will be issued.

They added Haloscan to the online version of the paper, so that's kinda neat. It's jaw-droppingly startling, though, how statist the thinking is of the average commenter. If the gov't does or says something, it's gospel, principles of liberty be danged!

How anyone could not take the five seconds of rational thought necessary to realize that forcing a property owner to maintain a public thoroughfare at his own expense is wrong, is beyond me.

Especially troublesome are these lines:

"...the borough will send teams of inspectors out to check sidewalks throughout the borough, beginning 24 hours after the end of a major snowstorm...

These inspectors will post brightly colored warning notices on the front doors of properties where sidewalks have not been cleared..."

Are you freaking kidding me? Teams of inspectors? Give the useless bureaucrats a shovel, for Pete's sake! And, if I lived in the Boro (I don't), and some meddling waste of carbon came stumbling up my sidewalk to put a sticker on my door, that diptard would be wearing a sticker back to HQ.

Monday, August 28, 2006

Overheard in New York

Conductor: Everybody out. This is the last stop on the Manhattan bound L train. You must use the Brooklyn bound L train and connect to the G to the A or C trains for service to Manhattan. [The train empties] Hahaha. Just kidding! Everybody back on. This train is going to Manhattan.

--Manhattan bound L train

Bunch of pretty funny stuff that, as the site name suggests, was overheard in New York.

What's your wife worth?

One reason that career women are so shocked to hear of their lack of desirability to men is that their comparatively high incomes mean that they are bringing something to the marriage table, in effect a form of modern dowry. But they tend to forget that in addition to their salaries one must assess their sexual values, which can be computed thanks to data collected on average American sexual practices which state that the average sexual encounter lasts 28 minutes and Americans average 58 such encounters per year.

Therefore, the sexual value of a woman can be computed according to the formula (P*(E/60)*(N*12), wherein P = price per hour, E = length of average sexual encounter in minutes and N = number of monthly encounters. Assuming realistic maximums, this value can be expected to range between 0 and $1.67 million on an annual basis. However, if one assumes that P for the average woman is one-third the overnight rate of a pretty, but non-elite 20-year-old call girl, the sexual value of the average American woman works out to only $1,353.33 per annum.

So, the problem faced by career women, then, is that while they do bring their modern dowry to the table in the form of a salary and a health insurance package, they bring little else, and money does not buy happiness. However high their original sexual value, their time commitments and job stresses tend to reduce it, while they are at a disadvantage with regards to other relationship aspects valued by men, such as providing children, child care and various household services.

The feminists are certainly screeching like caged monkeys at mealtime from this one.

Saturday, August 19, 2006

SWAT Raids Gone Bad

I couldn't say it much better than Kim does: The problems of (a) criminals claiming to be SWAT or Police, and raiding homes, and (b) SWAT/Police raiding the wrong house and killing innocent people.

Because let me tell you all this: I’m also sick of reading about cops raiding the wrong address, and slapping around the wrong people.

Law enforcement cannot have it both ways: they cannot have greater power over the populace without also being more responsible for its use.

In other words, the next time the Swatties raid the wrong place and kill some poor innocent schmuck like me, I want the raid commander to be charged with first-degree murder. No cover-ups, no weasel words, no nonsense. Wrong address + dead innocent = severe punishment (and not adminstrative punishment, but criminal punishment).

If we armed citizens have to exercise extreme care with our weapons, then law enforcement needs to be held to a higher standard. That’s the beginning and the end of it—or else this whole thing is going to end badly. Hell, for some people, it’s already ended badly.

No more. Not one.

Or else the police are going to have to go back to being ordinary cops, and not some wannabe-military force, with all the risks that this would entail.

Amen. And amnesty for anyone who shoots a cop raiding the wrong home. Because ANYONE can don a "SWAT" t-shirt and yell, "Police!" as they break through the door.

**EDIT** Go to the post at Kim's, and read some of the comments, particularly these (relevant portions):

(by TheUnderdog)

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I have been an avid reader of this site for many months now, and it is this topic that has finally provoked me to come out of the shadows and respond.

“99.99% of police are fine, wonderful and upstanding people”

Sorry to disagree with you.

As a former police officer, I can tell you that the percentage of outstanding police officers (the kind worthy of our trust and respect) is exactly the same as the percentage of outstanding people in any other blue collar occupation. (<10%) Maybe less.

And the bell curve goes up from there. The largest percentage are average at their job, and an equally small percentage are below average.

How many outstanding construction workers have you met? How many garbage men would you trust with your life? How often would you let a car mechanic hold a gun on you?

I do not mean to degrade the men who do these jobs, but they are also blue collar (don’t need a college degree) just like cops.

You might know many cops who are all great, but that’s bacuase the good ones tend to flock together. (as do the bad ones)

21 and a GED is the only qualifications you needed to apply to the academy in my city. FBI and other special Units being the exception.

Due to the life and death nature of the job, being an “average” police officer doesn’t really cut it in my book. That means that they are as likely to deny me my rights/abuse their authority as not. (maybe through ignorance or attitude, poor training or indifference.)

The other readers who have expressed concerns about the Cops vs. Civillians attitude have it excatly right. Guys who couldn’t get respect any other way, can get it with a badge and a gun. And they do.

It is a corrupting influence even for good hearted people. I have felt the surge of power when you pull someone over, code 3. I also know that my attitude, as the arresting officer, was often THE KEY FACTOR in determining if a traffic stop would become confrontational/violent.

It is a very difficult/mentally demanding job being done by men & women who (for the most part) are not as smart, dedicated, or trained as we believe they are.

Only by holding police officers to a HIGHER standard than other citizens will we move toward a police force that might truly exist “To Protect and Serve.”

SWAT/ESU units should only be used in hostage/barricade situations where normal police operations have been TRIED ALREADY, AND FAILED.

If the beat cops/detectives are feel unsafe serving a warrant on a known drug dealer in his crack house, I would say that neighborhood has problems far beyond those that can be solved by flash-bangs and MP5’s.

Sorry, confidential informants and tips are not enough.

Perhaps if some of that federal money is diverted from assault vehicles to state of the art surveilance gear, and some time and energy is invested into collecting evidence, we might be sure when the big guns are called out, they might get the right house.

Of course that would take intelligence, restraint and patience. None of which is as rush inducing as going in weapons hot, strong through the front door.

BTW- When I left the force to go back to college, my friends who stayed behind gradually placed my outside their group. I was no longer one of them. I had become a civillian.

We had an expression back on the force, it went like this:

Put 3 of any item (guns, flashlights, coffee mugs) in a roomful of cops and what will happen?

One will get lost, one will get broken, and one will get stolen.

If the SWAT/ESU/BATF boys come to my house for a no-knock raid at 0-dark-30, I will do the same thing that the rest of you will do:

Either quickly submit… Or die. Because nobody I know sleeps in Kevlar, and there are always more of them than us.

Sorry for the length of my post. Make of it what you will.

(gandalf23)

Talking the other day to DPD officers hired as part of getting a film permit in Dallas, the subject of sobriety checkpoints came up.

They said they loved them, and not because it got drunks off the street, but because they could work the system to get overtime.

They said they’d stop John Q Public. Let’s say his record is clean, they check, no warrants, nothing on their computer. Nice car. So they check his eyes, have him follow their finger. Apparently they can get a really good feel for BAC level that way. If he passes, ie, is not drunk, they’ll ask him to step out of the car, then arrest for Public Intoxication (much much lower standard of proof), or they might not do that and just arrest for dwi.

Why?

They figure a guy with a clean record and who is not really drunk will fight it.

That means they have to show up at court, which means overtime. Overtime to drive to court, go to court, and drive back.

They both said they made a lot of money each month that way. “Most” of the folsk they arrest so that they can get more overtime “get off” so they saw it as “not a problem”.

Monday, August 14, 2006

Liquid Bombs?

They haven’t had much success. One went off over 12 years ago, on Philippine Airlines Flight 434. It killed an innocent businessman on his way home, and blew a hole through the cabin floor of the airplane, but did not cause the jet to crash. The alleged bomb maker was Ramzi Yousef, who was later convicted of the first bombing of the World Trade Center, carried out 11 months before the airplane attack.

Mr. Yousef was reportedly dissatisfied with the performance of his bomb, which he mixed in the airplane lavatory and hid in the underseat pocket that holds the life jacket. He vowed to make the next bombs “10 times more powerful” but apparently never figured out how to do so. Getting a pint or so of chemicals onto an airplane isn’t hard, and never will be. Pouring two shampoo bottles together in the lavatory can be done discretely. Up the quantity to a gallon or two and things become a bit more obvious.

This threat has been known and discounted for well over a decade. No one can explain why the threat is suddenly more credible, even if those arrested were really planning an attack. Everyone seems to be carefully avoiding the fact that gallons of liquids in hundreds of little bottles are still placed on nearly every airplane before every flight. Food and drink loaded into airplanes isn’t screened in any meaningful way, and the screening of the workers who cater, clean, and load unchecked cargo onto airplanes is spotty at best.

The government/media complex is breathlessly assuring us that some 2 dozen Muslim citizens of the UK would surely have blown up 9 or 10 airplanes. “Thousands of lives” would have been lost. The record of PAL flight 434 suggests otherwise.

The hype is based on pretty slim evidence. We know that the police have arrested some 2 dozen suspects, but already released 2. The apparently innocent people were arrested despite the fact that the groups had been under intensive surveillance, if not fully infiltrated, for months. We are assured that the suspects will be retained the full 28 days without charges, as allowed by British law. US law as written requires speedy charges, but as practiced allows suspects to be imprisoned and tortured for years without charges or access to lawyers.

There have been no reports of finding bomb factories. The presence of “bomb making materials” in one of the searched homes is hardly surprising: a bomb might be made from hair bleach, nail polish remover, and some lemon juice. How many bleached blondes would be jailed if possessing this combination of materials was illegal?

I'm going with Vox's rule of thumb (paraphrased): If the Government's Official Story is "A", then "A" is likely not the truth.

Sunday, August 13, 2006

2am Alarm

Screening out stupid people

Wow, two posts in one day.

As mentioned in the post below, the wifey and I, and the in-laws went camping at a local state park this past weekend. Everyone went to bed around 10pm. I slept outside, on the ground, as I don't like tents--ruins the fun of being in the outdoors.

'Round 2am, I awoke. Took me a couple of seconds, but I realized that someone had opened a 55-gallon drum of TrailerPark&reg Domestic Dispute (Now with fewer teeth!) just down the hill. It sounded like three people simultaneously venting a couple months worth of supressed rage at each other. This went on for 15-20 minutes. At 2am. In a crowded campground. At freaking 2AM.

I called the park office, as I wasn't going to try to play peacemaker, while shivering and barely awake like I was--I'm not stupid. Of course, no one answers that late at night, and the answering machine that answered doesn't record messages, it only plays a two-minute diatribe on reserving a campsite and the evils of forest fires.

Eventually, one or more of the participants got in a car and left. Silence, mostly, returned. I'm pretty sure there were kids down there while this was going on. (We drove slowly by the site the next morning, and there they were.)

A Camping I went...

Critiquing Others' Parenting

Went camping at a local state park, with the in-laws: The wife's sister, her husband, their four kids (all aged 8 and below) and her parents. Had a good time, generally, though the kids are a bit, shall we say, "pert", at times. I love 'em tons, and pick on them incessantly, and it's a good time. What gets me, though, is the willingness of their parents to allow them to speak disrespectfully to them (The impudent "No, Daddy!), and whine/cry to get their way or express their displeasure at a parentally issued order.

It could be that I'm far too strict about this; my not having kids and all might not lend much credential in my ability to parent. It seems to me, however, that the guy on the outside looking in might be the one most accurately able to assess the situation from a theoretical or strategic standpoint.

Am I wrong about this?

I'm of the belief (and can't wait to test the theory on Daughter #1, expected in early-mid October) that any disobedience is punishable: You do NOT disobey a parental edict. You follow the edict, without whining, negotiating, or delay; cheerfulness is ideal and possibly even mandatory. To do otherwise is disobedience and therefore unacceptable. Whining, tantrums, disrespectful attitudes: No-no's. This applies to any child old enough to understand the word "No".

I'm not mean, nor will I be abusive; either physically or verbally. I will correct, positively and gently as possible while still getting the point across, when my little angel strays. Consistent, loving discipline; applied heinie-ally if necessary, but not in anger.

And I'm fun--ask the neice and nephews (the youngest is not yet a year old). "Do it to me, jml!", is commonly heard after I hang one of them by their ankles out over some body of water, or give a horsey ride, or similar fun-ness. If one gets the priviledge of being hung upside down, they all have to--and I can't say I don't enjoy doing it.

Saturday, August 05, 2006

Progressive Marital Relationships

Progressive... [Chortle]

From London's Daily Mail, Nirpal Dhaliwa writes of the hierarchy of men and women in marriage, and the folly of feminism:

Women thought the last victory of equality was to make men more 'sensitive'. The bitter irony, says this male writer in a piece that will infuriate the opposite sex (including his wife Liz Jones), is women don't like wimps after all...

...

Deep down, women love men who stand up to them, who won't be pushed around. They love men who will look them in the eye and tell them to shut up when their hormonal bickering has become too much.

They love men who will draw a line in the sand and walk out on them when they've had enough. They love men who know their own minds and are man enough to stick to their guns.

I'm always telling my wife, the writer Liz Jones, to shut up. She gets into a prissy huff about it, but I know she respects me for not indulging her neuroticism. Long ago, I realised it is unhealthy for a man to embroil himself in arguments with women.

While men want an argument to make sense and have a rational conclusion, women solely want the argument itself: it's a pressure valve for their emotions, and once they get started there is no stopping them.

I have a very low boredom threshold; I can't bear having protracted discussions about where my wife and I 'are going'. Nor can I bear to listen to the gossipy, highly detailed 'He said, she said' monologues that women drift into when telling you about their day.

This is a well-written piece that should be required reading for every married (and not-yet-married) man in the Western world (most of the East has this down). The gist of it is this: Women don't want sensitive, doting, spineless yes-men as mates. This, I learned through the past five years of marriage simply by trial and error, and it's quite true--you'll both be happier if you, the Man, will grow a pair and assert your Biblical right to the head of the household. And yes, that means YOU are the BOSS--none of this teamwork excrement the psycologists like to prattle on about.

Monday, July 31, 2006

I'm, like, umm, thirty.

Only one way to stop the birthdays from coming...and we're out of drain cleaner.

I turned thirty the other day.

I state this as fact. I'm not real proud of it (it's not due to any of my own accomplishments), but there it is. I guess I have to grow up, some, now. No, I won't stop enjoying fiery homemade explosions or bitter sarcasm or making "Yo' Mama" jokes with my white, moderately redneck friends. I DO, however, need to start cracking down on myself. Lots of little stuff can no longer be tolerated--I talk a bit like a redneck, don't enunciate proper-like. I don't manage my time very well--spend too much time reading Vox and Bane and Nate and Bill and Claire and Digg and Slashdot.

But I guess it's time to change. I have a kid on the way (October), and she'll need stuff. Diapers and shoes and tricycles and math books and gas money and a wedding (I'm only paying for one of those). I need to buckle down; I will buckle down and spend my time more wisely. I want to be self-employed, working mostly from home, so I can be here when the little tyke(s) start(s) walking and talking and playing the violin. (We WILL be home schooling.)

So any advice or links anyone feels led to share, feel free to do so in the comments.